Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93626 Case Number: AD9411 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ATLANTIC MILLS LIMITED - and - TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. DC 89/93.
Recommendation:
The Court is satisfied, given all the circumstances, that the
recommendation of the Rights Commissioner was appropriate and
should be upheld.
The Court therefore does not allow the appeal by the employer, and
so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93626 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1194
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
ATLANTIC MILLS LIMITED
AND
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. DC 89/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 450 workers at its plants in Tullamore
and Longford. The appeal concerns 4 electricians employed at the
Tullamore plant. The Company decided to dispose of obsolete
textile equipment. A buyer was found and a dispute arose when the
buyer engaged his own technical staff to dismantle the equipment.
The Union claimed that the 4 electricians should have also been
involved in the dismantling work. It submitted a claim for
compensation for loss of earnings arising from the work performed
by outside labour. Management rejected the claim. The dispute
was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. On the 24th September, 1993 the Rights
Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"Whilst it is quite apparent from the foregoing that the
Company were perfectly entitled to dispose of the obsolete
machinery to an outside contractor, I am satisfied that this
dispute arose from a combination of
(a) an expectation by the claimants of additional earnings
on the basis that they had disconnected the machinery's
"mains" and
(b) a break-down in communications concerning the conditions
of sale attached to it's subsequent dismantling.
Against that back-drop, therefore I recommend that the
Company pay the four claimants an ex-gratia amount of #75.00
each, not as compensation, but purely as a gesture of
goodwill and entirely without precedent and in full and final
settlement of their claim.
I also recommend that in the event of a recurrence of similar
contracts in the future, both parties should have due regard
to the provisions of their existing joint Agreement, covering
this particular area, in dealing with such issues."
On the 4th November, 1993 the Company appealed the recommendation
to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal in Tullamore on
the 1st February, 1994.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The dismantling of the equipment was appropriate to
specialist technicians brought in by the buyer. This
condition conforms with normal practice applied to used
textile equipment. Under Section 31 of the Company/Union
Agreement provision is made for the use of outside
contractors and for the co-operation and assistance of the
workforce.
2. The Company's action in disposing of this equipment did
not impact on the earnings or job security of the claimants.
The workers could not reasonably hold an expectation of
additional earnings arising out of the equipment sale.
3. The Company is not in a position to concede claims for
payment of work not done. It is trying to remain competitive
in a very difficult trading environment.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 4 workers concerned had disconnected the mains for
this equipment and had an expectation that they would assist
the technicians in completing the work. On previous
occasions electricians had been involved for the duration of
dismantling work and had received additional earnings.
2. The Company's action had the effect of precipitating
limited industrial action by way of "blacking" the part of
the plant involved. The Union advised the claimants to lift
the "blacking" subject to the Company's agreement to refer
the issue of compensation to a Rights Commissioner. The
Union understood that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation would be accepted by the Company, and on that
basis, secured a return to normal working. The Company's
decision to appeal the recommendation is a breach of good
faith.
DECISION:
The Court is satisfied, given all the circumstances, that the
recommendation of the Rights Commissioner was appropriate and
should be upheld.
The Court therefore does not allow the appeal by the employer, and
so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th February, 1994 Evelyn Owens
T.O.D./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.